kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu.UUCP (10/30/87)
In article <32335@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >Red Ryder is no longer a shareware package as of 10.0. You don't get this >option anymore. If more people had paid for their shareware versions, Watson >might not have had to make this decision.... > Let's face it. A lot of shareware is garbage. Red Ryder may be an exception, but I doubt it. I have seen many postings on the net and BBS's that enumerate the bugs to be found. Most of the shareware programs I have downloaded have been buggy, some crashed my system. I have noticed an interesting correlation between programs and shareware messages: The more offensive the shareware message the worse the program works.
pgn@usceast.UUCP (Paul Nevai) (10/30/87)
Somebody said:
Let's face it. A lot of shareware is garbage. Red Ryder may be an exception,
but I doubt it. I have seen many postings on the net and BBS's that enumerate
the bugs to be found.
END
Let's keep the person's name anonymous.
BUT Red Ryder is one of the finest programs available on the Mac. When I say
Red Ryder I mean version 10.0 and up.
It isatisfying to see that some of the finest Mac programs come from authors
with shareware background: SuiteCase, PowerStation, Red Ryder, DiskTop,
QuicKeys, Pyro, Acta are I guess the BEST ones in this category.
As far as Red Ryder goes it is the BEST communication program, though some
VersaTerm fans might dispute this statement. But MacTerminal and the others
are way behind. Of course, I just know the most popular programs, and there
could be some even better but less known ones availbale.
BUT Red Ryder still isn't perfect. For instance, I can't get the VT 100
cursor work on our VAX or CMS.
* * * * | * * * * *
* * * * | * * * * *
* * * * |* * * * *
---*-------*-------*-------*-------*-------*-------*-------*-------*---
* * * * *| * * * *
* * * * * | * * * *
* * * * * | * * * *
Have Orthogonal Polynomials
Will Travel
Paul Nevai N410106@univscvm.BITNET (PREFERRED)
Carolina Research Professor .../!wright/!usceast/!pgn (UUCP)
Department of Mathematics pgn@cs.scarolina.edu.CSNET
University of South Carolina 73057,172.Compu$erve
Columbia, S.C. 29208 1-(803)-777-3776.office
U.S.A. 1-(803)-777-4226.secygardner@prls.UUCP (Robert Gardner) (10/30/87)
In article <4909@oberon.USC.EDU> kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: >Let's face it. A lot of shareware is garbage. Red Ryder may be an exception, >but I doubt it. I have seen many postings on the net and BBS's that enumerate >the bugs to be found. > This posting is not intended to offend shareware providers... I think a lot of people who provide shareware post their stuff in an incomplete stage thinking that if interest warrants (i.e. enough dollars come in) then they will finish the product, support it, re- release it, etc. However, I get the feeling that most shareware USERS refuse to pay for incomplete, buggy software. So they don't pay, the provider doesn't think it's worth his/her time to polish the product, and shareware gets a bad reputation, both from the provider's and the user's standpoint. I once heard a successful developer (I believe it was Chris Crawford) comment that it's the final 10% of polishing that makes the difference between a fun, usable program (he was talking about game software) and a flop. I think that what makes commercial software seem so much better is just that final 10% of effort and beta testing that shareware rarely gets because people don't want to pay for incomplete, buggy software. It's a vicious cycle and I'm not sure how to break it. Ideally, you would think that shareware would be a great place to beta test and polish a product, if only you got the impression that it would pay off. It takes a lot of time and effort to polish a product and I don't think people want to (or should be expected to) do it without promise of pay-off. If anyone has any ideas on how to make it work, please share them! Some of the most interesting to me are providing source code or more features to those who register. But this still assumes that your initial posting is reasonably polished and bug-free! On a somewhat related not, I think the amount of money asked can be important, but perhaps differently than people might think. I get annoyed at shareware that asks me to send "what I think it's worth" or similar and I also don't like ones that ask for $5 or less! (Maybe even $10 or less.) Why? Because it hardly seems to be worth it to go to the effort of making out a check, sending it in the mail, etc. just to give someone enough money to go to a movie. It also makes you wonder what kind of an opinion the author has of their software and what the chances are that they'll really do anything else with it. Is this a strange attitude? Are marketing practises also a concern in shareware? Robert Gardner
kateley@apple.UUCP (Jim Kateley) (10/31/87)
In article <2444@usceast.UUCP> pgn@usceast.UUCP (Paul Nevai) writes: > >BUT Red Ryder is one of the finest programs available on the Mac. When I say ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ I don't know anymore, I gave up on it in the sixes, and the tens didn't look any better, only more confusing... >VersaTerm fans might dispute this statement. But MacTerminal and the others ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >are way behind. Of course, I just know the most popular programs, and there ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well.....Kermit is nice, even great, tons of features is great, scripting up the butt is great, but I need vt100, Macterminal 1.1 (UNIX, eh?), and Macbinary. I use autolog to log me onto things I don't want to dial over and over, and the one feature I will not give up, no matter what else I get, is Record lines off top. I DONT want XXX damn screens off top, I DONT want capture files. I want to be able to create a document and scroll lines off the top onto the disk, and fill the disk if I please. I have not seen a terminal program yet that will allow me to do this simple thing as well as MacTerminal. Well, CDC connect let me do it with a keyboard shortcut, but it didn't have MacTerminal 1.1 (sigh) So you can argue features all you want, and I'll sit here and suffer through no keyboard shortcuts, no kermit, no zoom box, no (whatever else there is) just because I can't get along without this one stupid feature....Oh, and if RR did happen to do this the way I want, it would take too long to figure out where it is! Talk about crowded dialog boxes... -- Jim Kateley Applelink: kateley1 UUCP: {sun, voder, nsc, mtxinu, dual}!apple!kateley CSNET: kateley@apple.COM Disclaimer: What I say, think, or smell does not reflect any policy or stray thought by Apple Computer, Inc. Remember: When you smile :-), the world smiles with you, When you frown :-(, the : and - keys think they are getting picked on
merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) (10/31/87)
In article <7082@prls.UUCP>, Robert Gardner writes: > On a somewhat related note, I think the amount of money asked can be > important, but perhaps differently than people might think. I get annoyed > at shareware that asks me to send "what I think it's worth" or similar > and I also don't like ones that ask for $5 or less! (Maybe even $10 or > less.) Why? Because it hardly seems to be worth it to go to the effort > of making out a check, sending it in the mail, etc. just to give someone > enough money to go to a movie. It also makes you wonder what kind of > an opinion the author has of their software and what the chances are > that they'll really do anything else with it. Is this a strange attitude? > Are marketing practises also a concern in shareware? Now, perhaps my motivation is different from people who do Shareware, since what I wrote wasn't Shareware. My Phone Book DA was released as public domain, but I added the note that if someone wanted to send me some money for it, I certainly wouldn't complain. I actually got five dollars from someone, which I used to buy lunch. The money was not important to me, so I didn't care that he didn't send more or less. I think, in most cases, these are the people who developed this program and suddenly figured, "Hey! I'll put it out as Shareware! Maybe I'll make some money! Wouldn't that be neat! But I don't want to charge too much for it...hell, I'll just tell people to send what they think it's worth." What I found intriguing was to include my address and I told people to write and give their opinions, mention bugs, or whatever. I got about ten letters from all over the country from people telling me they got it off of this bulletin board and that they found it a useful program and wouldn't it be nice if it also did this and this and this. It was kind of amusing watching letters from Texas, California, and even Australia come in. Personally, I think that's just as nice as someone who sends five dollars. -- "I'm on fire..." Peter Merchant (merchant@dartvax.UUCP)
garth@swatsun (Garth Snyder) (11/01/87)
In article <4909@oberon> kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: Let's face it. A lot of shareware is garbage. Red Ryder may be an exception, but I doubt it. I have seen many postings on the net and BBS's that enumerate the bugs to be found. In article <7082@prls.UUCP> gardner@prls.UUCP (Robert Gardner) writes: On a somewhat related note, I think the amount of money asked can be important, but perhaps differently than people might think. I get annoyed at shareware that asks me to send "what I think it's worth" or similar and I also don't like ones that ask for $5 or less! (Maybe even $10 or less.) Why? Because it hardly seems to be worth it to go to the effort of making out a check, sending it in the mail, etc. just to give someone enough money to go to a movie. It also makes you wonder what kind of an opinion the author has of their software and what the chances are that they'll really do anything else with it. Is this a strange attitude? I could not disagree with you more. The average price of a shareware program seems to be around $15, yet most shareware seems to be of the quick-and-dirty might-be-useful-once-in-a-while variety. How can this compare with a "real product" like Dark Castle which you can buy for less than $30? I am a college student and don't have a lot of money to spend on software. Since I get so much more bang per buck out of commercial products, I tend not to use or buy shareware. There are some very good shareware programs out there, but generally speaking these are few and far between. Consider what $15 means to someone like me. It can mean three movies, two records or a compact disk, ten hamburgers, twelve milkshakes, half of Beyond Dark Castle (I'm saving up!), etc. Placed against this competition, a program to strip linefeeds out of text files doesn't fare too well. -------------------- Garth Snyder UUCP: {seismo!bpa,rutgers!liberty}!swatsun!garth Swarthmore College ARPA: garth@boulder.colorado.edu Swarthmore, PA 19081 ALSO: {hao,nbires}!boulder!garth --------------------
mrh@Shasta.UUCP (11/02/87)
In article <2444@usceast.UUCP>, pgn@usceast.UUCP (Paul Nevai) writes: > > As far as Red Ryder goes it is the BEST communication program, though some > VersaTerm fans might dispute this statement. But MacTerminal and the others ^^^^^^^^^ ... > BUT Red Ryder still isn't perfect. For instance, I can't get the VT 100 > cursor work on our VAX or CMS. > Paul Nevai N410106@univscvm.BITNET (PREFERRED) I've heard lots of complaints about the VT100 emulation in Red Ryder. Those of you using the 'BEST' communications program and who need VT100 emulation should consider VersaTerm, especially those who run directly c connected at higher baud rates than 1200 baud. You'll be shocked at the improved throughput. David Gelphman
rmh@apple.UUCP (Rick Holzgrafe) (11/02/87)
In article <7082@prls.UUCP> gardner@prls.UUCP (Robert Gardner) writes: >I think a lot of people who provide shareware post their stuff in an >incomplete stage thinking that if interest warrants (i.e. enough >dollars come in) then they will finish the product, support it, re- >release it, etc. However, I get the feeling that most shareware USERS >refuse to pay for incomplete, buggy software. So they don't pay, the >provider doesn't think it's worth his/her time to polish the product, >and shareware gets a bad reputation, both from the provider's and the >user's standpoint. > >I once heard a successful developer (I believe it was Chris Crawford) >comment that it's the final 10% of polishing that makes the difference >between a fun, usable program (he was talking about game software) and >a flop. >[...] >Robert Gardner Hm. Makes sense, but... I'm a shareware author ("Scarab of RA", a graphics adventure game for the Macintosh). I spent nearly half the total development time on that "final 10%": getting out bugs, polishing the user interface, writing (and re-writing and editing) a massive on-line help feature. I wanted to release a polished, finished product; after all, it would have my name on it, and I would be asking money for it. I think I did a pretty good job (if I do say so myself. :-) I asked what I thought was a good bargain price, ten dollars, and released it in February 1987. To date, I've had slightly over fifty sales. Now, I'm not complaining. I had fun building it, and I knew when I started that I was unlikely to become a millionaire $-) as a result. But I was hoping for a little better than a projected 70 sales a year for a quality product! So why doesn't it sell? I dunno - could be a) poor distribution (nets, BBSs, user groups, and Jasmine disk drives - is that a lot?), or b) it's not as hot as I think it is :-( or c) people are playing it in droves, but not paying up, or d) it just takes time to get noticed: a few months to be seen, a few months to get around to trying the game, a few months to decide to keep it, a few months to get around to sending the check. The reason is kind of unimportant though. Unless the money suddenly starts to pour in (see hypothesis d, and cross your fingers for me, I have a mortgage), I won't be writing any more shareware. Scarab was between 6 and 12 man-months (not calendar months) in development, and a return of maybe $700 per year on that kind of effort is not real inspiring. Anybody have any counter-arguments? (Before I close, let me direct your attention to the disclaimer below, and add that "Scarab of RA" is not an Apple product. Not a Claris product either!) ========================================================================== Rick Holzgrafe | {sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual}!apple!rmh Communications Software Engineer | AppleLink HOLZGRAFE1 (I don't look often) Apple Computer, Inc. | "All opinions expressed are mine, and do 20525 Mariani Ave. MS: 27-Y | not necessarily represent those of my Cupertino, CA 95014 | employer, Apple Computer Inc."
roberts@cognos.uucp (Robert Stanley) (11/09/87)
In article <6606@apple.UUCP> rmh@apple.UUCP (Rick Holzgrafe) writes: > I'm a shareware author ("Scarab of RA", a graphics adventure game > I think I did a pretty good job (if I do say so myself. :-) > I asked what I thought was a good bargain price, ten dollars, and released > it in February 1987. To date, I've had slightly over fifty sales. > So why doesn't it sell? I dunno - could be > a) poor distribution ... > or b) it's not as hot as I think it is :-( > or c) people are playing it in droves, but not paying up, > or d) it just takes time to get noticed... I am one of the many people who acquired Scarab of Ra when it appeared on usenet in comp.binaries.mac. I was immediately impressed by the unusual professionalism of the product, which includes well-executed graphics, and a very carefully thought out and constructed user interface. The on-line help feature which Rick also mentions is both effective and comprehensive. I truly believe that anyone familiar with the Mac could be comfortable playing this game in a very short while, and the richness and variety of its features make it quite a lot of fun. I particularly enjoyed the humour that pervades much of the text. But I am also one of the people who hasn't paid my $10 to Rick! One reason is indeed the laziness factor. I can't write Rick a cheque and mail it, because I don't keep a bank-account in US funds; I have to physically visit a bank during *its* business hours and get a US money order. This is a real hassle, because our offices are out on the edge of town. [When, oh when, will ATM's provide more than the basic services? :-( ] The other reason is that, after mastering the controls of the game, you quickly discover that any one game is random in terms of where various objects have been placed in the pyramid. So what? Well, there is no guarantee that the game is soluble, and it is more than just irritating to die from hunger simply because there literally was no food within reach. As far as I was concerned, the game was extremely pretty to look at, but no fun to play, and it is no longer present on my system. I know I have a copy somewhere, because I am a compulsive hoarder, but I sure haven't seen it in months. Had I been a little less lazy about the bank, I might have sent Rick money in that first week, but after that it wasn't worth it. Rick - tell me I'm wrong, and I'll dig the game out and send you $$ - promise. Value for money is in the eye of the beholder, and I suspect that most shareware users who don't pay either figure it isn't worth it (but may well go on using the thing occasionally, anyway), or let payment slide so long that it simply drops off the things-to-be-done stack. So, what's the answer, since most of us appreciate the enormous effort that goes into creating a quality product? Perhaps an irritating inclusion which counts the number of usages and quietly says NO (or something) when the limit has been exceeded. Payment/registration would yield the magic word to unlock the program. I know, easy to get around, but the *fact* that you have to get around it will a) remind you that you haven't paid, or b) stop you using it when you haven't paid. Robert_S -- Robert Stanley Cognos Incorporated S-mail: P.O. Box 9707 Voice: (613) 738-1440 (Research: there are 2!) 3755 Riverside Drive FAX: (613) 738-0002 Compuserve: 76174,3024 Ottawa, Ontario uucp: decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!roberts CANADA K1G 3Z4
rmh@apple.UUCP (Rick Holzgrafe) (11/13/87)
In article <1728@cognos.UUCP> roberts@cognos.UUCP (Robert Stanley) writes: >In article <6606@apple.UUCP> rmh@apple.UUCP (Rick Holzgrafe) writes: > >> I'm a shareware author ("Scarab of RA", a graphics adventure game [...] > >> So why doesn't it sell? I dunno - could be >> a) poor distribution ... >> or b) it's not as hot as I think it is :-( >> or c) people are playing it in droves, but not paying up, >> or d) it just takes time to get noticed... > >I am one of the many people who acquired Scarab of Ra when it appeared on >usenet in comp.binaries.mac. I was immediately impressed by the unusual >professionalism of the product [...Thanks! --rmh] > >But I am also one of the people who hasn't paid my $10 to Rick! > [...] As far as I was concerned, >the game was extremely pretty to look at, but no fun to play, and it is no >longer present on my system. I know I have a copy somewhere, because I am a >compulsive hoarder, but I sure haven't seen it in months. [...] > >Rick - tell me I'm wrong, and I'll dig the game out and send you $$ - promise. Robert, you're not wrong. The shareware deal is that you pay for it only if you like it enough to keep using it. Since you used it for only a week or two, then got bored, you certainly shouldn't pay. (But keep your copy if you're willing to give it disk space, and hand it on to anyone interested. Should you ever dig it out and develop a sudden, inexplicable addiction to it -- *then* pay. :-) Robert Stanley didn't pay because of reason b) above, which is perfectly proper: no program can please everyone, especially games. Other folks have sent ecstatic fan letters, so I'm obviously pleasing some people and not others. No surprise there. He continues: >Value for money is in the eye of the beholder, and I suspect that most >shareware users who don't pay either figure it isn't worth it (but may well go >on using the thing occasionally, anyway), or let payment slide so long that it >simply drops off the things-to-be-done stack. > >So, what's the answer, since most of us appreciate the enormous effort that >goes into creating a quality product? Perhaps an irritating inclusion which >counts the number of usages and quietly says NO (or something) when the limit >has been exceeded. Payment/registration would yield the magic word to unlock >the program. I know, easy to get around, but the *fact* that you have to get >around it will a) remind you that you haven't paid, or b) stop you using it >when you haven't paid. That's a vote for c), and a suggestion on ways around it. Possibly correct - but one reason the on-line help in "Scarab of RA" is so complete is because I *hate* turning out a lame product. Copy protection, magic passwords, and annoying pop-up demands for payment get in the way of using any program. They're not friendly, and that's a huge sin in the Mac world (or any world). Sending a printed manual to registered owners is not a bad idea, though: an on-line-only manual is a pain if it's of any size, and offering a printed manual is using a carrot instead of a stick to get people to pay. But one reason Scarab is shareware is because I don't want to run a mail-order business. (*sigh*) I've had some other mail on this issue. Joel West <jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu> writes: >I think it's very difficult for shareware products to get >noticed in crowded markets. So if the product is unique >or nearly so (I'm thinking of QDial or Stuffit) it's one >case, but if there are a ream of commercial, advertised, >promoted products pushed through dealers, that's another. >Unique well-done products that solve a real need sell, history >shows. If it's a small need, maybe a small product (not >7 man-months) at a small price will do well. This makes sense to me. Certainly one more adventure game is not earth-shattering news in the Mac market or in any other. Count a vote for reason d), and I'll reconsider shareware if I ever think up such a product. (BTW, how are QDial and Stuffit doing as shareware? Anyone care to comment?) Perhaps we can draw a moral: you can't make money selling something unless you put some time and effort (and money) into marketing it. Perhaps there are exceptions but those of us without truly exceptional products had better remember the rule. I might be making more money if I sold a manual and/or hints booklet for Scarab... and spent my evenings writing addresses, licking stamps, and hassling California sales tax regulations. James T Sasaki <uunet!relay.cs.net!jts@siemens.com> writes: > [...Scarab] crashed my SE [on launch...] The program in question doesn't crash *my* SE (or my Plus, or my Mac II - it's nice working for Apple :-) so I presume Mr. Sasaki got a bad copy. He got it off of Usenet. That, plus the on-going flood of re-transmit requests for part 17 of 35 of whatever came by recently, suggests that a lot of software (on Usenet, at least) is not getting much distribution because it doesn't survive the trip. This may be a vote for reason a), though Usenet is certainly not the only distribution channel for Mac shareware. Please send further discussion directly to me, and I'll summarize again if the response justifies it. ...in the meantime, anyone got a good 'snd ' recording of a cash register? *CHING* $-) ========================================================================== Rick Holzgrafe | {sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual}!apple!rmh Communications Software Engineer | AppleLink HOLZGRAFE1 (I don't look often) Apple Computer, Inc. | "All opinions expressed are mine, and do 20525 Mariani Ave. MS: 27-Y | not necessarily represent those of my Cupertino, CA 95014 | employer, Apple Computer Inc."
alex@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Alex Heatley) (01/26/88)
Hi, I'm trying to find out if Edit2.1 is shareware or freely available. The application itself offers no details as to its status and I'd normally assume that meant it was free, except that I'm sure I saw somewhere that you had to pay for it. The reason why I ask is becasue we have some people who want to pay for it if it's shareware as they find it so useful. While I'm on the subject, I prefer to use the term "Freely Available" Software rather than Public Domain as the latter is a misnomer in these days of ShareWare, GreyWare, Snuffware etc. How do others feel about the debasement of the term Public Domain to include things which aren't Public Domain but share some of the same characteristic? Thanks for your time.-- Alex Heatley : CSC, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Domain: alex@comp.vuw.ac.nz Path: ...!uunet!vuwcomp!alex Trolls can often be found under bridges ... or in Computing Departments.